• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Somebody please explain the two point attempt

Troglodyte said:
Really?

Many people have a problem with going for 2 as they don't feel the risk was worth the extra point. That's easy to criticize because the play failed.

But the decision to throw the ball when trying to run out the clock was also risky (actually far more risky than going for 2) but nobody is criticizing that decision. Why? Because it worked? Or because the risk was worth the reward? If it had been disastrous, would you be defending it?

I suspect much of the criticism here is actually over the result of the 2 point attempt, and not the actual play call itself.
Click to expand...

I was not able to watch the game, or at least was not able to watch it closely. I did not see Bryant's TD, and am unaware of the game situation. I just looked at the play by play, and there were approximately 9 minutes left in the 3rd quarter when Bryant scored, so the "risk of passing when trying to run out the clock argument" seems quite stupid to me. Edit,, just double checked and the 88 yard play came with just over two minutes. We were only ahead by 5 points, so in my opinion you still try score, or at least make first downs. I think the comparison of the two situations,is still a bit far fetched from a stategery perspective.

With regards to the 2 point play, I think it was a stupid decision regardless of whether it was successful. Considering that we were ahead by 2 points, it seems logical, at least to me & Spock, to play the percentages to ensure you cannot be defeated by a FG. Extra points are no longer the cupcake plays they used to be, but I believe the odds are probably better than trying a two point conversion, particularly when your offense has been struggling to do much of anything.
 
Last edited:
Troglodyte said:
I think you're proving my point. The absurd reasoning that whether or not a decision is stupid is contingent upon the outcome. If you win $10k playing Russian roulette, it was smart decision to play.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who thinks playing Russian Roulette is the smart play.
 
But that's not counting the amount of practice time this team has put in on these two point plays. Even with Ben out. Landry has practiced these plays in abundance also. They've been running the "seven shots drill at the beginning of every practice since last year. Landry ran them just as much as Ben in camp this year. They've vowed to be aggressive on these plays since the season began.. I just don't see it as a clear cut its wrong decision. Just like if they had kicked it wouldn't have been a clear cut wrong decision to not go for two. Both had merits. 50/50.
 
I guess I just don't see the merits of going for two when you're ahead by two. I guess I would prefer to play the odds of eliminating at least one scenario under which I could lose the game.
 
One scenario (going for 2) is purely a point ratio. A play after a TD used to secure the points needed to win or gain a statistical advantage on your opponent at end game. I.e to go for 2 to make it a 3 or 7/8pt margin or a 3/7/8 point deficit.

The pass to Bryant around 2 min is an endgame scenario, that our team has shown after the loss to Tampa Bay, that it will do what it can to secure possession and run out the clock vs giving the ball back to your opponent with a lead under 1 score. A first down under 2 minutes when your opponent has no timeouts, is a victory formation. This is smart coaching and will increase the odds of your team winning a game. Tomlin has shown that this is one place he will dig his heels in to be consistent.

Tomlin is not Shottenheimer, Edwards, or Norv Turner. He plays to win the game. It may cost us some games, but I'm all for a coach that gives his team the opportunity to win a game over a coach making safe decisions to try not to lose, any day. Players respond to that type of game play. They know success is up to them, and they're willing to work hard to make the play. That's how we got out of San Diego with a win last week.
 
Troglodyte said:
It was an example of the absurd reasoning to which I had just referred. Comprehend much?
Click to expand...

Going for 2 in that situation is stupid, regardless of the outcome.

Playing Russian Roulette is stupid, regardless of the outcome.

It is not the outcome that is stupid.

It is the act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMC
agree on Russian roulette, disagree strongly on going for 2....Love the aggressive play call and I hope they keep it up.
 
Super Dave said:
Going for 2 in that situation is stupid, regardless of the outcome.

Playing Russian Roulette is stupid, regardless of the outcome.

It is not the outcome that is stupid.

It is the act.
Click to expand...

OK, but then what was your point about me making up hypotheticals of what could have been the outcome of the pass to Bryant?

I thought were inferring that since it didn't result in an incompletion or turnover, it didn't matter if it was a stupid decision or not.
 
Hobbster said:
agree on Russian roulette, disagree strongly on going for 2....Love the aggressive play call and I hope they keep it up.
Click to expand...

Time and place.

Up by 1, with Ben, where defense is struggling a bit? Yes.

Up 2 at home, with 3rd string QB, against a pretty decent team, where the defense has done a damn fine job since halftime? No freaking way.
 
Steeltime said:
Time and place.

Up by 1, with Ben, where defense is struggling a bit? Yes.

Up 2 at home, with 3rd string QB, against a pretty decent team, where the defense has done a damn fine job since halftime? No freaking way.
Click to expand...

Why not when said QB has practiced this scenario just as much as Ben.
 
Steeltime said:
Because he is not as good as Ben.

Do you seriously question that?
Click to expand...

How do you make that equation Smh. He doesn't have to be Ben. If he is familiar with the two point plays why shouldn't they call them. He isn't as good as Ben in any facet of the game but that didn't stop them from calling more pass plays on first and second down when he came in to the game. How you equate advocating Landry to start over Ben out of anything I said Is a major reach.
 
antdrewjosh said:
How do you make that equation Smh. He doesn't have to be Ben. If he is familiar with the two point plays why shouldn't they call them. He isn't as good as Ben in any facet of the game but that didn't stop them from calling more pass plays on first and second down when he came in to the game. How you equate advocating Landry to start over Ben out of anything I said Is a major reach.
Click to expand...

I think we have identified the problem.

The problem is that you have a screw loose.

Probably from SMH'ing your head too much.
 
Last edited:
Troglodyte said:
OK, but then what was your point about me making up hypotheticals of what could have been the outcome of the pass to Bryant?

I thought were inferring that since it didn't result in an incompletion or turnover, it didn't matter if it was a stupid decision or not.
Click to expand...

It WAS a turnover.

Had AZ returned that interception for a score, then the go ahead TD (that we scored) would have turned into a scoring play for AZ that would of tied the game. But that is a hypothetical.

A hypothetical that should lead anybody with a modicum of common sense to conclude that kicking the XP is the right call in that type of a situation.
 
So we can only go for two when Ben is playing gotcha. Guarantee if we had kicked and Arizona had tied the game on a FG or scored a TD there would be a bunch of we should have gone for two yahoos
 
Last edited:
antdrewjosh said:
So we can only go for two when Ben is playing gotcha. Guarantee if we had kicked and Arizona had tied the game on a FG or scored a TD there would be a bunch of we should have gone for two yahoos
Click to expand...

Under that scenario, Spock would refer to the gone for two yahoos as the stupids, or maybe that's me. I'm not sure I ever heard Spock say anything like that.
 
Especially since if they scored a TD we would of been down only 3 with a successful two point play. I'm sure it would of happened. Because any decisions made under this staff the opposite should have been done whether sucessful(wildcat TD) or the two point attempt.
 
Last edited:
antdrewjosh said:
Especially since if they scored a TD we would of been down only 3 with a successful two point play. I'm sure it would of happened. Because any decisions made under this staff the opposite should have been done whether sucessful(wildcat TD) or the two point attempt.
Click to expand...

So you basically want to go for 2 pts conversions every time then...right?
 
Nope didn't say that. Doesn't really bother me if they do or don't though..They've repeatedly said they will be aggressive in these situations. And they have practiced these plays repeatedly for a year in preparation. In Sunday's game there were pluses and minuses to go either way. Didn't bother me.
 
antdrewjosh said:
Nope didn't say that. Doesn't really bother me if they do or don't though..They've repeatedly said they will be aggressive in these situations. And they have practiced these plays repeatedly for a year in preparation. In Sunday's game there were pluses and minuses to go either way. Didn't bother me.
Click to expand...

So you realize there was a negative side to it...which everyone is pointing out but you just want to argue about it? Everyone is saying at that point in the game the right decision was to take the one point...even with Ben because of the negative side which you agree exists.
 
And I don't agree because there was a positive side to it also. The only play wasn't to just kick. And I also disagree because no matter what decision was made there would still be some saying the opposite of what they are now if the Cardinals had scored. Its not like the Cardinals scoring a TD wasn't something to consider since they were moving the ball up and down the field.. no one knew the defense would keep them out. No what this staff does they are second guessed even when successful. Prime example the Bell TD last week.
 
Last edited:
antdrewjosh said:
So we can only go for two when Ben is playing gotcha. Guarantee if we had kicked and Arizona had tied the game on a FG or scored a TD there would be a bunch of we should have gone for two yahoos
Click to expand...

post-40503-Supernatural-Dean-Speechless-W-JVWN.gif
 
antdrewjosh said:
So we can only go for two when Ben is playing gotcha. Guarantee if we had kicked and Arizona had tied the game on a FG or scored a TD there would be a bunch of we should have gone for two yahoos
Click to expand...

You seriously think that? That's ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top